In Helferich Patent Licensing LLC v. New York Times Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2047 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") concluded that the judicially-created doctrine of patent...more

Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises -
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in affirming a district court decision that toy maker Marvel was not required to make payments after the expiration of a patent,...more

Most will be aware by now of the recent US Supreme Court decision, Bowman v Monsanto Co.,569 US (2013). One question that remains is what would have been the outcome if like facts had arisen in Australia and were considered...more

In This Issue:
- “Patent Trolls” in the Crosshairs – But How Will Patent Reform Legislation Impact the Rest of Us
- USPTO Guidance Takes an Expansive View of Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
- Functional Claim...more

The past year has been unusually active for the “first sale” doctrine. Also known as patent exhaustion, the doctrine is based upon the premise that a patent holder is entitled to only one royalty for its sale of a patented...more

In LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. V. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit found that LifeScan’s distribution of its One-Touch Ultra glucose meters exhausted its patent rights such that it could not prevent Shasta from...more

In Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that Keurig’s patent rights were exhausted by the sale of its machines, and so not infringed by the defendant’s sale of...more

Helferich Patent Licensing’s (HPL) licensing program has been dealt a serious blow by an Illinois federal judge. On August 14, Judge John Darrah ruled that the New York Times and others could not infringe HPL’s patents...more

In a much anticipated case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 19, 2013 in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons that the “first sale” or “exhaustion” doctrine of U.S. Copyright law, which allows resale of copyrighted materials,...more

The U.S. Supreme Court recently closed its 2012 term with its usual headline-grabbing flurry of June decisions. Several of those decisions, as well as many more that received less publicity, will affect business interests. In...more

In a recent 6-3 decision with potentially significant implications for the functionally analogous patent exhaustion doctrine, the Supreme Court held in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the first sale doctrine applies...more

In This Issue:
- CANADA’S LONG-AWAITED COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION TAKES EFFECT:
To much fanfare and after years of debate and consultation, the government of Canada passed the most important reforms to Canadian...more

Patent Exhaustion Rejected: Patented Seed Purchaser Has No Right to Make Copies: Bowman v. Monsanto Co. -
In a narrow ruling that reaffirms the scope of patent protection over seeds, and possibly over other...more

The facts behind the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Monsanto v. Bowman are simple enough. Farmers are able to buy soybeans containing Monsanto’s patented glyphosate resistance technology under a license that permits them to...more

The Supreme Court in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. ruled unanimously that a farmer’s replanting of harvested seeds constituted making new infringing articles. While the case is important for agricultural industries, the Supreme...more

In Bowman v. Monsanto Co., the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not give a farmer who has bought patented seeds the right to “reproduce” them through planting and harvesting without the patent...more

In the case of Bowman v. Monsanto Company (May 13, 2013), the US Supreme Court has weighed into this thorny field, and on Monday it delivered a unanimous judgment upholding the rights in Monsanto’s patented soybeans. (See our...more